Convergence Final

Greg Clayton

Prof. Cacoilo

Convergence

9 December 2015

Social Networking: A Modern Day Freak Show

            The carnival was grotesque, with its freak shows and abnormal humans, was very popular and controversial back in the late 18th to early 19th century, by then it had matured into a distinct form of entertainment. In the 21st century, has the concept become dated? Has the freak show been revealed for the mistreatment and subjugation of many poor human beings? We live in times where many things that were once discriminated are now accepted and many kinds of people recognized as members of society and although there are instances that would challenge that notion, it is only a minority. This represents the progress mankind has made to understand one another. But has the idea of the freak show been abandoned with this new period? It is unfortunate to say that is not the case. In fact if anything it has only intensified with the advancement of society, particularly relating with technology and social networking. Social networking is the spectacle and barker in this relationship of the freak show to modern times. It is because of social networking, that we can see examples of the freak show displayed in our daily lives.

             I want to explore this further, explaining in greater detail on how the freak show and the carnival grotesque have just as advanced with society as everything else and in fact plays on these advancements to contribute to the spectacle of the freak show and grotesque.
Of course, technology is how we advance in society. In advancement, we take on new cultures and let us abandoned many uncivilized ideas. Social media sites like Facebook or Twitter are examples of how we have advanced in talking with more people and social networking. With that, people argue that it has led to “more communication and not less” (Observer) and makes socializing easier and making difficulties like lengths and region null and void. Then now with that in mind, this has led us to incorporate more of social networking into our lives. The social media sites allow us to upload and express our identity. Of course there is debate on insults over Facebook post online, but debaters argue social networking is a new field of communicating there is no social conditioning really to establish how to properly act online compare to how different from how we act in real life.
              It is also with social media that even when we point out the freak show and in some way degrade the person, it leads to a positive matter. (Observers) For example, the article, “Serious documentary or freak show” depicts a medical professional journey in observing a clan of deformed natives. The clan was being “sensationalize” by providing programming and donations to them for animals rights regardless it is a cartoon. However because of this, the clan got money and medical treatment for themselves (Koppel 325). That is an example of exploiting the deformities; it actually helped the clan despite a loss in privacy and dignity. That is true, that social networking has allowed us to communicate with more people. We are social creatures; we enjoy the company of others but are sometimes limited because of distance situations, language barriers, and even failure to understand one another. Social networking is a concept that has received an upgrade along with society. These upgrades are sites like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and etc. They are the new ways we socialize with the world around us. We can communicated across oceans with international friends, translate text online, see all the things people like and are interested in. These should have been making socializing easier. However that is not the case, it is fact ironically leads us not to socialize with the world. Many reviewers and critics have pointed out this flaw about social networking.
            In “Social networking under fresh attack as tide of cyber-skepticism sweeps US”, it brings up various points related to how society extends itself through it social media and the opinions towards or against it. This all surrounding a reading of Sherry Turkle called Alone Together. She pointed out that social media is “actually isolating us” with “cyber-reality” (Observer). Now this is an interesting point relating to the spectacle of the freak show. Relating to Susan Stewart, On Longing, they bring up the relationship between the spectacle and the audience. Within the space of the freak, he or she is isolated within this world made for him to be presented in. What emphasizes that is the assumption that the spectacle, to them, “the object is blind” and only the “audience could see” (Stewart). So there is only a one-way relationship, with no reciprocation. By that no response from the other side, then it provides the isolation the spectacle feels. And bringing it back to social media, this cyber reality causes isolation within its users despite the idea it was use to bring people together.
           That is much like social networking, where people are allowed to comment and not be expected to receive or return a comment they put on any image or post. In “What is Good is the ‘You’ in YouTube?” it communicated lack of individuality gained from the number one video-sharing site, since many videos are taken down for either censorship or violation of copyright. (Marche) These cases deny the chance for expression, and apply their own sense of individuality and you either comply or do not, however that means you unable to comply, it makes you abnormal to the eyes of YouTube. Many social network sites apply this practice with their other users. By doing so, people feel free but only within their own space, daring not to step out foo line in fear of going against normalcy. But now, people are put into these cages. These cages are the making of themselves due to unable to comply with normalcy. This makes them feel isolated, but within their own space, while they cannot step out of their cage, viewers are allowed to see in and view them. This makes the viewer the “audience” The audience hold the essential part of the freak show. They are what shaped the cultural ideal of the freak show. What might have been considered a freak may have been accepted as normalcy. So the audience is the representation of that said culture. For example, Elephant Man, the Elephant man is kidnapped back from the freak show barker to be back into the show. However when presented, he is met not with the disgust of his body but rather met with disgust of his current state. He was accepted into society by those audience and high-ranking figures, and not looked upon as a monster but as a gentle human being. This is an example that, it was not he himself who was the freak but whether the viewer has viewed him as a freak, the term can always be defined differently with different eras. The audience carries on the freak show. In social network, the audience also plays the role of the spectacle sometimes on the site. I mean it makes sense, they are both users on the site, they are probably people who post photos and socialize on the site like everyone else. For they are in the same position as the spectacle and the spectacle could be in the same position as them, but the only difference between maybe one on the chopping board and one ridiculing him, is that one is right now on the chopping block while the other is not on yet. However then the problem occurs. The freak show must be separated from the audience in all ways, as to not be reminded of the association of identity to the audience. That is the role of the barker, who prepares the audience for the spectacle, most likely choosing to exaggerate the human body in a way; YouTube and other sites do that in a way.
          This is where the barker plays the part to separate the two sides: the audience and the spectacle. He usually does so by stating: “Stand back ladies and gentlemen, what you are about to see will shock and amaze you” (Stewart) in the circus environment. By the banker saying that, he establishes this parameter and warning of not being overwhelmed by the freak show about to be presented. The significance of the separation is to normalize the audience so they are not aware of the spectacle and whether he should be regarded as people, or they assume he cannot look into them. If you add more distance, it not only applies more distance, which he’s a foreigner faraway, but acts, on the human part: curiosity. The Barker would arrange the freak show much like categories and determines which will be the center of attention by trying to display which is most interesting in the center. With social media, the site carries the role of being the barker within this social circus. Social networking sites like Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram play the role of the barker. How they operate is that they are where uploading videos, images, or blog posts. Censorship is another tool of social media that could be related to the Barker’s duties. Censorship is by removing or blocking images or ideas that would be either too controversial or inappropriate for social consumption. There by restricting the audience from seeing certain viewings but rather focusing ion the ones they considered within their conditions to be displayed. Then also by censoring, they control what the audience sees much like how the barker in freak shows control what the audience wants to see from the freak.
             The freak show exploits the abnormalities of the human being. But nonetheless are still incredibly natural parts of the human body compared to all the body modifications and surgeries people go through achieve the “perfect human body” where people see deformities as unnatural. In fact Bogdan points out in his book Freak Show Presenting Human Oddities for Amusement and Profit, the freak is a more of a “frame of mind” and is more based on the “social arrangement in which they found themselves” (3). What he means by that is that freak is not defined because of the physical appearance but rather how the social culture recognized what is or is not a freak. So necessarily, they do not have to be physically unappealing to not be a freak.
The freak has no longer been identified or associated with such extreme physical deformities, but now is formed or branded a freak by social behavior like being obnoxious, shallow, mean, or any other form, they appear to be internally deformed and making them a freak there so. The freak displays itself with a photo that people may attack on due to it being against the norm or socially unacceptable. What makes it interesting is that the photos are also things that many people may actually do in their life. For example, viewing photos, we see a man shirtless with a big belly and with his wife in what appears to be leaving a bonfire. Already people make comments about his weight and size of his body, relating it to “pregnancy” and such. Then the comments were directed towards the woman and were implying sexual innuendos about her swallowing semen. Aside from the people, this scene is relatable with people going out in the outdoors as many have done that. It plays on the freak show that the spectacle is only really noticed when he or she is placed within a normal situation. For example on page 9 of Bogdan’s Freak Show, there is Adolph-Rudolph play an example of phony Siamese twins, dressed in formal attire, put on display. This way of presenting themselves represents the way the freak would dress up from even casual attire to be in display (Bogdan 9). Another example was when a man was posing between two half naked women in bikinis, though while not physically unsettling, it plays on the internal grotesque with assuming the guy was an obnoxious human. The people would make comments of him being a “douchebag” or “pre-K fat ass”. The comments were judging him based on social stigma of the way he dressed, which was this white tank top with gold chain and sweatpants and these sunglasses. This appearance was unapproved, however it was interesting to point out that one person commented on him being okay with the image because he was between these two girls in bikinis. Internal deformities are what differentiate from the circus sideshow, which exclaimed human abnormalities, the social network ridicule internal deformities. However what they carry together similar, is what draws our attention to both is the why, questioning either the existence of the freak or the motives of the person posting the picture or status on their Facebook. What the spectacles do is question about it and be curious about it, be lost within the world of the spectacle.
             Now to explore the relationship between the spectacle and the audience from the freak show time compared to its place in social network. In the freak show, the audience is brought in by the showmen to see the display of monstrosities, deformities, and near animalistic humans with these relatable environments like drinking tea or working in a home. Sometimes they would just be dressed up. In Freak Show, Bogdan points out freaks were “what you made them”(95). Some of the so called “freaks” added painted third eyes to be “the man with three eyes” or some lie about their age, like for instance children pretended to be dwarves but lied about how old you would actually be (Bogdan 97). It is interesting how the freak show would intentionally dress up as a freak, compared to actually deformed humans like “three legged man” or the “Siamese twins” (Bogdan 95). What was the reason: curiosity. The audience likes to be surprised and curious on how such a person exist compare to where they are from but again at the same time not wishing to directly interact with them. Then there when people adjust themselves in a similar matter (i.e. makeup, push up, Photoshop, hair dye, or just even tiny modifications) they can be harassed for that. I am not saying the freak show was not harassed, especially in that era, but with modern times, a harasser online can already hide and be found to face the consequences of what he had done to the victim online. I think there is such contradiction and many opinions, because unlike the relation between audience and freak show, which that they separate in every form, from location, origins, and identity, the viewers to the user of socials network is blurred because the viewers also uses the social network and there by can be in the same position as the spectacle of the social network. However this also can be a negative, with this sort of sympathetic side to the social network and spectacle, there are people who understand the pain but instead just wants to bash people like them because they cannot accept it themselves for being abnormal like that. If you compare between the circus environment and the social networking, social networking would win in terms of cruelty and discriminations towards the freak. Sure there was physical abuse with sideshows at the circus, but the social networking carries something that wins over physical abuse: ambiguity. Social networking carries the ambiguity over the viewers to the spectacle. Unlike maybe in sideshows, where people might be intimidated to mess with the freak show because he or she could just easily confront them, where as social networking, you are denied those possibilities. People can post anonymously and bash you, then hide behind the computer screen as a fake ID or secret viewer on site like Form spring, that are people can ask and answer questions anonymously. It is no use, they are aware, that even if they are across the street or from school, the Internet makes them hard to track and they could just as well be in the Philippines. Then with ambiguity, comes aggression. People knowing they could not possibly be caught, unrestraint themselves to be completely honest, whether it be hurtful or not towards anyone online. On the article, “Is Facebook Turning You Into A Monster?” near the end of the article, Marynell points out the difference between insults online compared to real life. She brings up the point that you can leave insults online “too easy” because there is no “interaction” online. (Malcolm) That is what encourages aggression, we are not restrained because it is registered in our heads there is no repercussions. So they just target the spectacle harsher compared to the freak show, where they restrained themselves as to not be overwhelmed by all of it. What else makes the spectacle harder to contain is that with social networking site, some people communicated on the sites like they would in real life, however that is hard to distinguish online leading to a lot of miscommunication (Malcolm). What is interesting is how Facebook practically invites us to judge the spectacle or anything uploaded on Facebook, much like other sites. For you seen, there is like comment, it is offering to like it or comment your opinion, it is not closed, it is again like the barker, by saying again this “Stand back ladies and gentlemen, what you are about to see will shock and amaze you” (Stewart). He is also inviting you into see the spectacle, kind of like double meaning phrase. This is interesting as humans are initially afraid but at the same time curious to want to behold or not even stand back. Then with the like and comment, it feels easy as stated by Malcolm, that it is too easy to do so as there is no interaction.
            Exploring multiple factors that build the freak show, to come understand the relationship between the circus freak and the social media freak. The freak show is not defined as mentioned before by the actual deformities but rather the perception by society and the cultural stance it has towards the human body, whether what part has been acceptable. What has always made the freak, it is the audience, they provide their own judgment that defines his own status. The freak show is to be used as cultural entertainment and yet at the same time to be the symbol of what is not normalcy for people, so they can identify their own ordinary compared to the extraordinary of the freak show. The showman exaggerates the spectacle to be more grandeur, the barker preparing the audience for the show coming. Then the ‘”freak” is defining his character, there are some who can live outside their own stage identity and some that can cannot. The freak show is ridiculed and looked at either with confusion or disgust, but at the moment, he is the center of attention for all these emotions around the freak show. Now with the social network, some are very much the same, the character or user can not be defined by her own physical appearances, she is shaped by internal beauty or deformities tat can be expressed through her interest and likes. The viewer picks up on that and recognizes that as the viewer is also the user, but it is that kind of relation that makes the ridicule more hurtful and worse due to being on social media, tracing would be difficult. It is different from the circus, people dare not interact in fear of it, but now people insult the user and hide behind a computer screen somewhere else. The spectacle is brought upon to judged by not only the sit itself who determines what is seen and censored anything else, denying you individuality and punish if dare show it, so this is what cages the spectacle and separates him or her from the viewers in another aspect, her individuality where many people on social networking tend to conform to popular choice, where it proves difficult to retain identity. But when she tries to, she is attacked by those who are recognizes as normal by their own standards and see her as not. The freak show in both aspects retain their identities and do not changed but rather their perspective of them does.



Works Cited

Best, Steven, and Douglas Kellner. "Debord,Cybersituations,and the Interactive Spectacle."SubStance. 28.3 (1999): n. page. Print.
Bogdan, Robert. Freak Show Presenting Human Oddities for Amusement and Profit . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990. Print.
Clark, Elizabeth. "What Good is the ‘You’ in YouTube? Cyberspectacle and Subjectivity." Gnovis Journal. 9.1 (2008): n. page. Print. .
Grande, Laura. "Strange and Bizarre: The History of Freak Shows." Things Said and Done. Wordpress, 26 sept 2010. Web. 17 Dec. 2013. .
Koppel, David. "Medicine and the Media: Serious Documentary or Freak Show?." BMJ Publishing Group 338.7690 (2009): 325. JSTOR. Web. 16 Dec 2013. .
Marche, Stephen. "Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?." Atlantic. n. page. Web. 16 Dec. 2013. .
Marynell Maloney Law Firm, . "Is Facebook Turning You Into A Monster." EmilyVento. Blogger, 22 Mar 2012. Web. 16 Dec. 2013. .
Mean Comments. 2010. Photograph. Mean CommentsWeb. 17 Dec 2013. .
Nyoung, . "freak shows for our times." Western Morning News. (2007): n. page. Print.
The Observer, . "Social networking under fresh attack as tide of cyber-scepticism sweeps US." Guardian. (2011): n. page. Web. 17 Dec. 2013. .

                                         Social Media and Athletes Mix Like "Lamb and Tuna Fish"

Lets take a time travel back to the days of greats like Joe Namath, Mickey Mantle, Babe Ruth, and Wilt Chamberlin. Back in their respected days you could have done pretty much anything and gotten away with it.

For example, Namath and his drinking, peeing on buildings, and fooling around with multiple girls a night. Mantle would drink like a fish and was known for sleeping around with different girls as well. Ruth was an alcoholic, and Chamberlin has said he had slept with over a million girls in his day, yes a million.

Now imagine those athletes now with twitter, instagram, snap chat, and Facebook. You think they would use those social media tools to brag to others on what they did when the game was over? Would Chamberlin snapchat people in his friend group the ten different women a night he was sleeping with? Would mantle take an “Insta” of the twelve pack he scarfed down before a division game against the Red Sox?

The answer we will never know, but the guess is yes these players would have loved to use these tools just as much as athletes in todays day love using them and love showing everyone in the world what they do when the game clock expires.

The culture of the athlete has always been the same. Now with a few exceptions, most athletes dating back to the early 1920’s did what they wanted. There views were that they were the chosen ones so they get to do what they want. The athletes have always had the impression that they are above the law. With that being said, the culture of the athlete has always been the same, there just weren’t social media tools back in the day like twitter, instagram, and snap chat to have these athletes exposing themselves like the athletes do today.

“ I think the athletes have always been the same,” Rob Kulish Director of Athletic Communications at Rutgers Newark said. “ The accessibility of those athletes whether by choice of not is different due to twitter instagram, or any social context.”

Back in previous years before any type of social media, athletes would get in trouble if they were caught in the act. For instance, if a cop or sportswriter saw Joe Namath peeing on the side of a bar he would either be arrested on the spot, or an article the next day would show the picture the journalist took. Today though it’s a different type of exposing the athlete. Today the athlete themselves are doing the job and making it easier for the journalist. Social media has caused athletes to really show their true colors by posting the stuff they post.

In 2014 Pablo Sandoval third baseman for the Boston Red Sox was benched for liking pictures of women exposing their breasts while he was using the bathroom during the game.

Or when Kenny Britt Wide Receiver for the St. Louis Rams was suspended and fined for posting him having sex with his wife on instagram. Yes, athletes are really doing this stuff. Social media is exposing these athletes in ways no journalist have ever exposed any athlete in anytime.

Everyday you see a new athlete get in trouble using social media. Whether it’s a fine for cursing off a ref because of a bad play, talking bad about the coach or organization for not playing them enough, or just simply posting pictures or videos of them doing illegal activities.

These incidents are not just happening to professional athletes. This issue of social media exposing the athlete who has always been this way stems from lower schooling. Middle school, to high school, then on to college, and if these kids are lucky enough then on to the pros. These kids when they’re younger look up to college and pro athletes. With that being said, when you are a kid and you emulate athletes who have made it you feel as if you need to act that way. You need to show people you are the best, and not only by playing the sport you play but also by acting and carrying yourself like you are untouchable.

“ From a young age kids are taught to act a certain way,” Olumide Onajide junior basketball player for the Rutgers Scarlet Raiders said. “ When your young and you see all these players walking around wearing nice clothes, rocking all this jewelry, driving in these crazy sport cars you think to yourself damn I want that life. So you build your appearance, your way of outlook, and the way you carry yourself around these guys”.

The culture of the athlete has always been a villain to society. Social media now has exposed and continuously exposes athletes to let people know what these athletes really do behind the scenes. This isn’t the 1960’s anymore, this is 2015. Television, radio, the Internet, apps, more news publications, twitter, instagram, snap chat. There are so many more tools for athletes to get busted, but they still show their ignorance in not caring and posting away.

           

Is it all about not caring and thinking they are the best, or is it not enough people in the teams front office to help guide these athletes in the right direction when going about social media?

           

“ The NFL Players Association has recognized the importance of training top draft picks on social media etiquette. Throughout the Collegiate Bowl, a week-long event hosted by the NFLPA in late January, the union have made it a priority to educate top prospects on the dangers of tweeting their minds” said Jed Hughes Vice Chair of Korn/Ferry and the leader of executive search firm’s global sports practice.

Teams in every sport are making strides to help players better grasp a true understanding of what twitter and other social media tools can do to your brand name.

“ It’s a sense of these players not caring,” Anthony Ferro Rutgers Newark sophomore said. “ They’re either playing high D-1 ball or making millions in the pros. Its kind of a bragging right that these guys hold to other players. Who can get fined more and not have it hurt their bank account. Some of these players are thinking, “so what I’ll pay this 20,000 fine I make 5 million a year.” It’s a sense of not caring and that is what social media has done to the athletes. Exposing them to a degree that no other publication has ever exposed them too.”

“ Scholars have looked at the effect of the internet and social media on our levels of knowledge and way of thinking. A growing body of evidence suggests that despite the unprecedented breadth and depth of information available on the internet, today’s young people are more ignorant than ever before” John V. Pavlik and Shawn McIntosh mention in there book Converging Media. Is that an accurate correlation given the fact that athletes in the past never had the tools to show their ignorance? If athletes in the past had social media tools to let them express their opinions and what they do behind the scenes it would be interesting to see how ignorant they would have been. Many would argue just as much.

“ I feel there are a lot of athletes that post what they want with the mentality that they have all this money they can do what they want,” Eli Christian senior at Rutgers Newark said. “ There’s always going to be athletes like that. For the most part in my opinion it’s just people being people. Everyone says and does stupid things its just these famous athletes that get exposed because they get paid for there skill”.

In many cases social media can be a great tool to help many different causes. To help raise money for children’s cancer, hash tagging important things to raise awareness, or to get people to help look for a missing relative by sharing their picture on a social media site.

However, the way the athlete has become since being exposed to social media has only made people realize the athlete has always been the same, we just see more now because of the tools to let these athletes expose themselves. Will this epidemic ever change? Only time will tell, but from the looks of this it’s only the beginning of a crazy reformation that will likely expand and become more of a problem.

                                                            Bibliography

Pavlik, John V., and Shawn McIntosh. Converging Media: A New Introduction to Mass Communication. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. Print.

Hughes, Jed. "Bleacher Report." Bleacher Report. N.p., 13 Mar. 2013. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.

Fittpaldo, Ray. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [Pittsburgh] 16 Mar. 2011: n. pag. Print.

Foster, Christine. Athletes Who Tweet:Differences in Audience Perceived Credibility between Journalist and Athlete's Twitter Accounts. Diss. Rochester School Of Technology, 2011. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

ESPN.Com

Yahoo Sports.com

Add caption

Johnny "Football" Manzeil rolling up a dollar bill....

Future of Convergence

           Creative thinkers are trying to figure out what will be the new breakthrough in convergence. The Internet has probably been the single most important source of convergence the world has seen so far. Lately, social media franchises have benefitted from the usage of the Internet. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder and creator became a billionaire because he converged the Internet with the everyday life of friends, allowing them to communicate with each other online like never before. This leaves people to think, should they follow the wave of trying to build new social media outlets like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat or try to hit a whole new market. The new wave of convergence will be in the area in which most Americans spend their money on: education.

            The popularity of TED Talks, websites such as Khan Academy, as well as educational YouTube channels prove that education is of growing importance to Americans. The question is, how can one make education more ‘trendy’ and appeal to the masses in the ways that social media has. According to Henry Jenkins, author of Convergence Culture, “In the world of media convergence, every important story gets told, every brand gets sold, and every consumer gets courted across multiple media platforms” (3).  By providing educational services to the masses, these brands sell themselves, gaining sponsorship that fund them in order for them to continue providing educational services via the Internet.

            As virtual reality becomes more popular, this technology can be used in conjunction with educational outlets to give knowledge hungry individuals a more personalized spin on education. Internet videos are great tools for learning. However some students prefer the classroom feel that allows them to interact with teachers. By integrating virtual reality with online education, a student who is at home watching a video or seminar can actually immerse himself or herself in the setting in which the video or seminar takes place. To enhance this opportunity, live seminars and classroom webinars could allow for interaction between the student at home and the educator. If this were possible, this could create worldwide classrooms, with students tuning in from all over the world.

            Education is an area that has to constantly adapt to the needs of students. As technology changes, these changes should be incorporated into new methods of teaching. In various classrooms across the country, textbooks are a thing of the past. Instead, students as young as five years old now have iPads. This new approach to delivering educational material to a new generation integrates the tools they use at home and deliver this material to them in an interactive more appealing way.

            Education is the most vital entity we have in our society, therefore it is important that we keep investing in new interactive ways of learning. Even though education is the key to the nation’s growth, most college institutions raise their tuitions yearly. As a result, some students have chosen to go the alternative route by enrolling in online institutions. The online college experience is often hard for the average student to adjust to due to discipline that is needed to successfully complete online coursework. By coupling the online college experience with virtual reality, the student can actually interact with other virtually present students, as well as teachers. This alternative would be a more affordable option for those seeking higher education, and should therefore be invested in.

Works Cited

Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006.